Post on 16-May-2020
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Petitioner,
vs.
**,
Respondent.
/
Case No. 14-1638E
FINAL ORDER
This case came before Administrative Law Judge Darren A.
Schwartz for final hearing on May 21, 2014, in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Barbara J. Myrick, Esquire
Broward County School Board
600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
For Respondent: Respondent's mother, pro se
(Address of Record)
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Petitioner's occupational therapy evaluation of
Respondent is appropriate.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On April 11, 2014, the Broward County School Board ("School
Board" or "Petitioner") filed a request for due process hearing,
seeking a determination of the appropriateness of its January 28,
2
2014, occupational therapy evaluation of Respondent. The School
Board's hearing request resulted from its decision to deny the
March 31, 2014, request of Respondent's mother for an independent
occupational therapy evaluation at public expense.
On April 15, 2014, the undersigned issued a Notice of
Hearing that scheduled the due process hearing requested by the
School Board for May 6, 2014. In response to Petitioner's
unopposed motion to continue, filed April 17, 2014, the final
hearing was rescheduled to May 21, 2014.
At the final hearing, the School Board presented the
testimony of ***** ******, ***** ******, and ***** ******. The
School Board's Exhibits 1 through 4 were received into evidence.
The ****** testified on behalf of Respondent. The *******
also presented the testimony of ***** ******. Respondent's
Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and 6 were received into evidence.
The Transcript of the final hearing was filed on June 9,
2014. At the final hearing, the parties agreed to file their
proposed final orders by June 19, 2014, and that the
undersigned's final order would be due by July 3, 2014.
The School Board timely filed a Proposed Final Order, which
was given consideration in the preparation of this Final Order.
Respondent did not file a proposed final order.
For stylistic convenience, the undersigned will use feminine
pronouns in this Final Order when referring to Respondent. The
3
feminine pronouns are neither intended, nor should be
interpreted, as a reference to Respondent's actual gender.
All citations to the Florida Statutes and Florida
Administrative Code are to the 2013 version, unless otherwise
indicated.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent was born on ************. *** has *****
*****. *** cognitive abilities are in the very low range as
demonstrated by a non-verbal index standard score of 44 on the
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition ("KABC-
II").1/ Respondent receives exceptional student education ("ESE")
services in the areas of ******** ********, ******** ********
********, and ******* *********.
2. During Respondent's ******-grade year (2013-2014 school
year), *** was enrolled at a public elementary school in Broward
County, Florida. *** was placed in a general education, regular
classroom setting, with constant one-on-one support of an
exceptional student paraprofessional.2/
3. In the fall of 2013, Respondent's ****** became
concerned that Respondent was falling further behind *** peers,
particularly in the subject of handwriting. This prompted
Respondent's ******, in October 2013, to request a meeting to
develop a re-evaluation plan.
4
4. Pursuant to the ******** request, the School Board held
a meeting on November 5, 2013. Following the meeting, the
parties agreed that Respondent would be re-evaluated by an
occupational therapist to determine whether Respondent's fine
motor skills impact *** educational progress and *** ability to
access the curriculum in the school environment. A meeting was
scheduled for March 14, 2014, to address the development of a new
IEP and to review the evaluation results.3/
5. **.***** ******was assigned to conduct the occupational
therapy evaluation of Respondent. **. ******* is a pediatric
occupational therapist who has performed occupational therapy
evaluations of students within the school district over the past
eight years pursuant to a contract with the School Board.
**.******* is trained and knowledgeable in her field. She holds
bachelor's degrees in exercise and health science, and
occupational therapy, and a master's degree in occupational
therapy. She is licensed by the Florida Department of Health as
an occupational therapist.
6. On January 28, 2014, **.*******conducted an occupational
therapy evaluation of Respondent. Prior to conducting the
evaluation, **.******* reviewed the "Consent For
Reevaluation/Reevaluation Plan" signed by Respondent's mother.
This document includes background information about Respondent,
and the mother's concerns and input regarding Respondent's need
5
for occupational therapy services, particularly with regard to
Respondent's handwriting.
7. **.******* conducted a comprehensive evaluation of
Respondent, the focus of which was to determine whether *** fine
motor skills impact *** educational progress and *** ability to
access the curriculum in the school environment.
8. **.******* assessed Respondent in all areas related to
Respondent's occupational therapy functional skills in the
educational setting to determine Respondent's status in each area
compared to the expectation of Respondent in *** curriculum. The
areas of evaluation included: Curriculum and Learning; Self-
Help; Mobility; Gross Motor; Fine Motor/Visual Motor; and Sensory
Processing.
9. **.******* evaluation of Respondent occurred during the
course of one school day. The evaluation included a three and
one-half hour clinical observation of Respondent in the second-
grade classroom and in other areas within *** school environment.
10. In the area of Curriculum and Learning, **.*******
observed Respondent's independent functional skills in the
educational setting. She observed that Respondent was
independent with accessing *** curriculum and independent with
manipulating the mouse on the computer, hanging *** jacket on the
back of a chair, and zipping/unzipping *** backpack to remove and
replace items. *** was able to manage *** school and personal
6
materials. *** sat independently in a standard issue classroom
chair without arms, *** was able to transfer into and out of the
chair appropriately without loss of balance, *** was observed
opening a paper towel and placing it on the counter prior to
drinking from the classroom water fountain, and *** was able to
remove tissues from a package and blow *** nose with minimal
verbal prompts. In the classroom, *** had the support of a
paraprofessional. **.******* recommended that Respondent's chair
be lowered for optimal positioning.
11. In the area of Self-Help (activities of daily living
skills), Respondent was independent as *** was toilet trained for
both bowel and bladder, and *** was able to push down and pull up
*** pants. *** had full range of motion to adjust *** clothing,
and independently pull *** shirt over *** pants. On the date of
the evaluation, *** was wearing elastic style pants. At times,
*** needed assistance with *** buttons on *** pants, but was
independent with *** snaps. *** was able to access the soap
dispenser and sink to follow the hand-washing routine given
minimal verbal prompts. *** required physical prompts to
unbutton medium size buttons on an Activities of Daily Living
Board ("ADL"), but was independent with buttoning on the ADL.4/
12. Respondent was independent in *** feeding and eating
skills as *** was able to pick up *** meal from the cafeteria
line and obtain food with adult assistance secondary to *** small
7
stature. *** was able to carry *** tray to the table and set up
*** meal independently. She was able to open all sealed packages
and containers, including a milk carton, cheese container, and
fork/napkin/straw package. She required a verbal cue to poke her
straw in *** juice bag. She was able to drink from a straw with
no spills, and finger feed and feed herself with a utensil. She
effectively used her right hand as an assist while scooping and
eating with her left hand. She maintained upright posture when
seated on the cafeteria bench and was able to transition on and
off the bench with no loss of balance. She used a napkin to wipe
her face and was able to clean her area and properly dispose of
her tray with adult supervision. There were no accommodations,
adaptations, or modifications that she needed in the cafeteria.
13. In the area of Mobility, Respondent displayed no
deficits, and demonstrated functional mobility skills. She was
able to walk around, and ambulate throughout the school campus
with adults in close proximity for safety. She was able to
transfer from sit to stand with no loss of balance noted.
14. In the area of Gross Motor skills, large muscles of the
body are observed. This area involves gait, and range of motion
of the upper and lower extremities. Respondent demonstrated
functional gross motor skills in the educational environment.
She maintained upright head and trunk control to engage in social
interaction and participate in educational activities. She
8
independently transitioned from standing to sitting on the floor.
She stepped over and around obstacles in her pathway and walked
in line while maintaining her balance. She attempted to catch
herself during falls and was able to carry her school materials.
She did not present with any fixed postures or any contractures
that interfered with her ability to access the curriculum.
15. The area of Sensory Processing involves the ability of
an individual to register and perceive the five senses of the
body, plus the vestibular and proprioceptive systems,5/ and then
filter out distractions in their environment. Respondent was
able to tolerate a variety of dry and wet tactile mediums (i.e.,
sticky, wet, and dry items), and accommodate to everyday
classroom noises without incident. She tolerated positional
changes without aversion and tolerated the closeness of others.
She followed classroom activities given adult prompting. She was
able to attend to table top and group activities with teacher
directive and prompting. She required various levels of prompts
due to inattentiveness, distractibility, and impulsivity. She
required prompts to sustain visual attention to tasks and for
task completion. She was able to imitate gross and fine motor
movement patterns, demonstrating good motor planning skills. She
initated play with peers, and engaged in peer initiated play and
group play.
9
16. In the area of Fine Motor/Visual Motor skills,
Respondent demonstrated the musculoskeletal ability to hold a
pencil and to make marks on paper. She demonstrated left hand
dominance using a functional tripod grasp of her writing utensil
with her wrist and forearm stabilized on the writing surface,
which was functional at full range of motion when completing
handwriting tasks.
17. Teaching handwriting is part of the curriculum in the
classroom, and not the responsibility of an occupational
therapist. Due to Respondent's developmental stage and low
cognitive level, she demonstrated difficulty with accurately
copying pre-writing strokes and shapes in order to be a
functional writer. She was able to copy vertical and horizontal
lines, circle and cross, and trace left and right diagonal
strokes, square and triangle. She was able to grossly trace
upper case letters and numbers with poor start and sequence
noted. She was not yet accurately identifying letters, numbers,
letters of her name, or her name in print in a field of two. Her
ability to accurately match and sort shapes and colors was
emerging. She was able to complete simple inset puzzles with
prompting. She required prompts to properly position regular
child safety scissors in her left hand while effectively using
her right hand to stabilize the paper. *** was able to cut a
piece of paper in half and had difficulty cutting along a curved
10
line. She was able to string small beads and remove and replace
caps to a marker and a glue stick.
18. **.******* administered the Wide Range Assessment of
Visual Motor Abilities ("WRAVMA") to Respondent. The WRAVMA is a
standardized, norm-referenced assessment tool, which is
particularly useful in addressing functional writing and fine
motor abilities of students in the school environment.6/
19. The WRAVMA assesses three areas using three subsets.
The drawing (Visual-Motor) test has children copy from designs
that are developmentally arranged in order of increasing
difficulty. Starting at an age appropriate item, the child
copies a standard design and proceeds until three consecutive
items are failed. The matching (Visual-Spatial) test provides a
measure of spatial skill by presenting visual spatial tasks
developmentally arranged in order of increasing difficulty.
There is one design on the top of the paper, and four designs at
the bottom. The child must match the top design with the design
at the bottom. The child continues until he/she makes six errors
within a series of eight consecutive items.7/ The pegboard (Fine-
Motor) test requires the child to insert as many pegs as possible
into a pegboard within 90 seconds. The pegboard is waffled to
add to its fine motor demands as well as to increase aesthetic
appeal.
11
20. Respondent scored in the deficient range in the Visual-
Motor and Visual-Spatial subtests. Respondent's errors on the
Visual-Motor test were not caused by her inappropriately holding
the writing utensil or due to the muscles or fine motor skills.
The WRAVMA has a mean score of 100 with a standard deviation of
15. Therefore, a score between 85 and 115 is considered average.
Respondent's standard score for Visual-Motor was a 50, and for
Visual-Spatial was 45.
21. Respondent's scores were more than two standard
deviations below the average, which directly correlates to
Respondent's non-verbal index standard score of 44 on the KABC-
II. Respondent performed within her cognitive range and expected
ability.
22. The pegboard (Fine-Motor) test was discontinued because
Respondent had difficulty following the directions as
demonstrated by randomly putting pegs into the holes and playing
with the pegs. However, **.******* had enough information
regarding Respondent's fine motor skills to proceed and finalize
the evaluation. If she had not, **.******* would have done
additional assessments. There is no requirement for an
occupational therapist to do more than one norm-referenced
assessment.8/
23. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the
January 28, 2014, occupational therapy evaluation of Respondent
12
by **.******* is appropriate. **.******* used a variety of
assessment tools and strategies (i.e., clinical observation,
record review, functional skills in the educational environment,
and the WRAVMA) to gather relevant functional, developmental, and
academic information about Respondent, including information
provided by the parent, that may assist in determining whether
Respondent is eligible for occupational therapy services.
24. **.******* did not use any single measure or assessment
as the sole criterion for determining whether Respondent is
eligible for occupational therapy services.
25. The assessments and other evaluation materials utilized
by **.******* to assess Respondent were selected and administered
so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis.
26. The assessments and other evaluation materials utilized
by **.******* to assess Respondent were provided and administered
in the student's native language, and in the form most likely to
yield accurate information on what Respondent knew and could do
academically, developmentally, and functionally.
27. The assessments and other evaluation materials utilized
by **.******* to assess Respondent were used for the purposes for
which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable.
28. Based on her evaluation, standardized assessments, and
record review, **.******* determined that occupational therapy as
a related service is not warranted to support Respondent's
13
functioning and promote the attainment of educational goals and
benefits. **.******* determined that Respondent was continuing
to make meaningful educational progress in *** educational
setting with the support of *** ESE services and implemented
modifications and accommodations.
29. The evaluation showed that Respondent has the
musculoskeletal functional skills and ability to manage her
school materials to complete *** tasks. However, her cognitive
impairment affects her progress to write independently.
30. **.******* attended the March 14, 2014, IEP meeting
regarding Respondent and discussed and reviewed her evaluation
with the IEP team. The evaluation was sufficiently
comprehensive, and provided the IEP team with sufficient relevant
information to determine whether or not Respondent met the
eligibility criteria for occupational therapy services, and what
*** occupational therapy needs were in the educational setting.
31. At the final hearing, the mother presented the
testimony of ***** ****** in an effort to demonstrate that the
January 28, 2014, occupational therapy evaluation is not
appropriate. The undersigned has considered and rejected the
testimony of **.*******as unpersuasive.
32. **.******* is Respondent's pediatric occupational
therapist in an outpatient, private setting. She has been a
pediatric occupational therapist for approximately 14 years. She
14
holds a bachelor's degree in occupational therapy. She has
worked with Respondent since approximately mid-September 2013.
33. **.******* practice is devoted substantially to
providing occupational therapy services to students in a private,
out-patient clinic setting.
34. Respondent's mother retained **.******* to perform an
occupational therapy evaluation of Respondent, which she did in
mid-September 2013. Since then, she has provided occupational
therapy to Respondent one to two times a week for approximately
one and one-half to two-hours a week. She also conducted a re-
evaluation of Respondent on an unspecified date.
35. **.******* evaluations were not offered into evidence
at the final hearing.
36. **.******* has never observed Respondent in the
educational setting, thus, she has no knowledge of how Respondent
performed in the school setting evaluation conducted by
**.*******. An occupational therapy evaluation in the school
setting is very different from an occupational therapy evaluation
in the private outpatient setting. A student may perform
differently in a school environment versus a private environment.
37. **.******* is familiar with the pegboard fine motor
test, but she has never assessed a student using it or the
WRAVMA.
15
38. **.******* testified that she may have chosen to use a
different particular assessment tool ("the Peabody") with regard
to one of the six areas——Sensory Processing. However, this does
not mean that **.******* evaluation is inappropriate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
39. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of
the parties thereto pursuant to sections 1003.57(1)(b) and
120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code
Rule 6A-6.03311(9)(u).
40. School boards are required by the Florida K-20
Education Code to provide for an "appropriate program of special
instruction, facilities, and services for exceptional students
[ESE] as prescribed by the State Board of Education as
acceptable." §§ 1001.42(4)(l) & 1003.57, Fla. Stat. (2013).
41. The Florida K-20 Education Code's imposition of the
requirement that exceptional students receive special education
and related services is necessary in order for the state of
Florida to be eligible to receive federal funding under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), which
mandates, among other things, that participating states ensure,
with limited exceptions, that a "free appropriate public
education is available to all children with disabilities residing
in the State between the ages of 3 and 21." 20 U.S.C.
16
§ 1412(a)(1).
42. A parent of a child with a disability is entitled,
under certain circumstances, to obtain an independent educational
evaluation of the child at public expense. The circumstances
under which a parent has a right to an independent educational
evaluation at public expense are set forth in 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.502(b), which provides as follows:
Parent right to evaluation at public expense.
(1) A parent has the right to an independent
educational evaluation at public expense if
the parent disagrees with an evaluation
obtained by the public agency, subject to the
conditions in paragraphs (b)(2) through (4)
of this section.
(2) If a parent requests an independent
educational evaluation at public expense, the
public agency must, without unnecessary
delay, either--
(i) File a due process complaint to request
a hearing to show that its evaluation is
appropriate; or
(ii) Ensure that an independent educational
evaluation is provided at public expense,
unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing
pursuant to §§ 300.507 through 300.513 that
the evaluation obtained by the parent did not
meet agency criteria.
(3) If the public agency files a due process
complaint notice to request a hearing and the
final decision is that the agency's
evaluation is appropriate, the parent still
has the right to an independent educational
evaluation, but not at public expense.
17
(4) If a parent requests an independent
educational evaluation, the public agency may
ask for the parent's reason why he or she
objects to the public evaluation. However,
the public agency may not require the parent
to provide an explanation and may not
unreasonably delay either providing the
independent educational evaluation at public
expense or filing a due process complaint to
request a due process hearing to defend the
public evaluation.
(5) A parent is entitled to only one
independent educational evaluation at public
expense each time the public agency conducts
an evaluation with which the parent
disagrees.
43. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03311(6),
provides similarly as follows:
(a) A parent of a student with a disability
has the right to an independent educational
evaluation at public expense if the parent
disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the
school district.
* * *
(g) If a parent requests an independent
educational evaluation at public expense, the
school district must, without unnecessary
delay either:
1. Ensure that an independent educational
evaluation is provided at public expense; or
2. Initiate a due process hearing under this
rule to show that its evaluation is
appropriate or that the evaluation obtained
by the parent did not meet the school
district's criteria. If the school district
initiates a hearing and the final decision
from the hearing is that the district's
evaluation is appropriate, then the parent
still has a right to an independent
18
educational evaluation, but not at public
expense.
(h) If a parent requests an independent
educational evaluation, the school district
may ask the parent to give a reason why he or
she objects to the school district's
evaluation. However, the explanation by the
parent may not be required and the school
district may not unreasonably delay either
providing the independent educational
evaluation at public expense or initiating a
due process hearing to defend the school
district's evaluation.
(i) A parent is entitled to only one (1)
independent educational evaluation at public
expense each time the school district
conducts an evaluation with which the parent
disagrees.
44. Thus, a school board is not automatically required to
provide a publicly funded independent educational evaluation
whenever a parent asks for one. A school board has the option,
when presented with such a parental request, to initiate——without
unnecessary delay——a due process hearing to demonstrate, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that its own evaluation is
appropriate. See Serpas v. Dist. of Columbia, 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 44536, *16 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 2005)("Once Serpas requested an
independent educational evaluation at public expense, as both
parties acknowledge she did, it was DCPS's burden to demonstrate
. . . that the evaluations performed by DCPS were appropriate").
If the district school board is able to meet its burden and
establish the appropriateness of its evaluation, it is relieved
19
of any obligation to provide the requested independent
educational evaluation.
45. To meet its burden of proof, Petitioner must
demonstrate that **.******* occupational therapy evaluation
complied with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.0331(5),
which delineates the elements of an appropriate evaluation.
Rule 6A-6.0331(5) provides as follows:
(5) Evaluation procedures.
(a) In conducting an evaluation, the school
district:
1. Must use a variety of assessment tools
and strategies to gather relevant functional,
developmental, and academic information about
the student, including information provided
by the parent, that may assist in determining
whether the student is eligible for ESE and
the content of the student's IEP or EP,
including information related to enabling the
student with a disability to be involved in
and progress in the general curriculum (or
for a preschool child, to participate in
appropriate activities), or for a gifted
student's needs beyond the general
curriculum;
2. Must not use any single measure or
assessment as the sole criterion for
determining whether a student is eligible for
ESE and for determining an appropriate
educational program for the student; and
3. Must use technically sound instruments
that may assess the relative contribution of
cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition
to physical or developmental factors.
20
(b) Each school district must ensure that
assessments and other evaluation materials
used to assess a student are:
1. Selected and administered so as not to be
discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;
2. Provided and administered in the
student's native language or other mode of
communication and in the form most likely to
yield accurate information on what the
student knows and can do academically,
developmentally, and functionally, unless it
is clearly not feasible to do so;
3. Used for the purposes for which the
assessments or measures are valid and
reliable; and
4. Administered by trained and knowledgeable
personnel in accordance with any instructions
provided by the producer of the assessments.
(c) Assessments and other evaluation
materials shall include those tailored to
assess specific areas of educational need and
not merely those that are designed to provide
a single general intelligence quotient.
(d) Assessments shall be selected and
administered so as to best ensure that if an
assessment is administered to a student with
impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills,
the assessment results accurately reflect the
student's aptitude or achievement level or
whatever other factors the test purports to
measure, rather than reflecting the student's
sensory, manual, or speaking skills, unless
those are the factors the test purports to
measure.
(e) The school district shall use assessment
tools and strategies that provide relevant
information that directly assists persons in
determining the educational needs of the
student.
21
(f) A student shall be assessed in all areas
related to a suspected disability, including,
if appropriate, health, vision, hearing,
social and emotional status, general
intelligence, academic performance,
communicative status, and motor abilities.
(g) An evaluation shall be sufficiently
comprehensive to identify all of a student's
ESE needs, whether or not commonly linked to
the disability category in which the student
is classified.
46. Notably, school boards have discretion in selecting the
diagnostic tests they use. See E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified
Sch. Dist., 652 F.3d 999, 1003 (9th Cir. 2011).
47. Pursuant to the findings of fact contained herein,
Petitioner has demonstrated that its occupational therapy
evaluation complies fully with rule 6A-6.0331(5) and is
appropriate. Respondent is therefore not entitled to an
independent occupational therapy evaluation at public expense.
48. This is not to say that Respondent is not eligible for
occupational therapy services. At the final hearing,
Respondent's mother attempted to litigate the issue of whether
Respondent is eligible for occupational therapy services.
However, the issue of whether Respondent is eligible for
occupational therapy services is not the subject of this
proceeding. Rather, the instant proceeding concerns solely the
issue of whether the evaluation conducted by **.*******is
appropriate. A determination of whether Respondent is eligible
22
for occupational therapy services would require a separate due
process hearing request filed by Respondent's parent, and a
subsequent hearing.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, it is
ORDERED that: (1) the School Board's occupational therapy
evaluation is appropriate; and (2) Respondent is not entitled to
an independent occupational therapy evaluation at public expense.
DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee,
Leon County, Florida.
S
DARREN A. SCHWARTZ
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings
The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this 27th day of June, 2014.
ENDNOTES
1/ A non-verbal index score of 44 is within the intellectually
disabled range, and less than 0.1 percentile of other children.
2/ A regular class "means a class in which a student spends 80
percent or more of the school week with nondisabled peers."
23
§ 1003.57(1)(a)1.c., Fla. Stat. (2013).
3/ The parties further agreed that Respondent would be re-
evaluated in the areas of speech; articulation; fluency; voice;
academic achievement; cognitive functioning; adaptive behavior
functioning; and physical therapy.
4/ An ADL board is often used by **.******* in a school setting
to assess students. The ADL allows students to simulate the
practice of buttoning and unbuttoning items of clothing. There
are four buttons on a piece of cardboard which fold over so that
the student can practice buttoning and unbuttoning.
5/ The vestibular system involves the interstitial fluid in the
ear and the head's relation to gravity. The proprioceptive
system involves input into the receptors, joints, ligaments, and
tendons of the body.
6/ Norm-referenced tests report whether a student performed
better or worse than other students of the same age.
7/ Visual-Motor involves the ability to look at a design or shape
and then copy it. Visual-Spatial involves identifying same
shapes after looking at similar shapes.
8/ **.******* did not use CERT (Considerations for Educational
Therapy) in conducting her evaluation, because her evaluation was
thorough enough to identify Respondent's needs and occupational
therapy performance within the educational setting. Moreover,
CERT is not an assessment tool. Nevertheless,
**.******* evaluation assessed all areas under the Student
Profile sheet of the CERT.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Liz Conn
Bureau of Exceptional Education
and Student Services
Suite 614
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Barbara J. Myrick, Esquire
Broward County School Board
24
Eleventh Floor
600 Southeast Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Respondent
(Address of Record)
Matthew Carson, General Counsel
Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 1244
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Robert Runcie, Superintendent
Broward County School Board
600 Southeast Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
This decision is final unless, within 90 days after the date of
this decision, an adversely affected party:
a) brings a civil action in the appropriate
state circuit court pursuant to section
1003.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), and
Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-
6.03311(9)(w); or
b) brings a civil action in the appropriate
district court of the United States pursuant
to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2), 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.516, and Florida Administrative Code
Rule 6A-6.03311(9)(w).